Couple Sues Wedding Vendors for $150k..

Re: Couple Sues Wedding Vendors for $150k..

Yeh it's kind of like Estee Lauder and P&G. Many of their brands they own say they don't test on animals, but they parent company does so it's hard to say. {Estee Lauder owns MAC and MAC has had to continuously make statements saying they don't test on animals. They also sell ONLINE to China. China makes company test on animals before selling, and since MAC only does online it's a loop hole. Shady one, but still}

I also think it's a slippery slope. There's a big difference between developing a new cosmetic or perfume that you spray in the face of an animal and developing foods or drugs that need to be tested.

They could test on humans instead. {not that it's a great idea, but there are some nasty people in prison that we could test on lol} I mean it's humans that are using the products ...

That’s not funny. There’s a long and horrific history of using people in prison, poor people, and specifically in the US black people as testers. It’s not a good idea and it’s not a good joke.

Yeh it's kind of like Estee Lauder and P&G. Many of their brands they own say they don't test on animals, but they parent company does so it's hard to say. {Estee Lauder owns MAC and MAC has had to continuously make statements saying they don't test on animals. They also sell ONLINE to China. China makes company test on animals before selling, and since MAC only does online it's a loop hole. Shady one, but still}

I also think it's a slippery slope. There's a big difference between developing a new cosmetic or perfume that you spray in the face of an animal and developing foods or drugs that need to be tested.

They could test on humans instead. {not that it's a great idea, but there are some nasty people in prison that we could test on lol} I mean it's humans that are using the products ...

That’s not funny. There’s a long and horrific history of using people in prison, poor people, and specifically in the US black people as testers. It’s not a good idea and it’s not a good joke.

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

In the cases with plenty of drugs, testing on humans is the last step. There's a protocol to follow and there is a hierarchy with testing. As new drugs are introduced we don't test them on humans first. The suggestion to use a human over a rodent is dangerously immoral.

My college experience opened my eyes that animal testing in itself isn't awful. But it's how the practices are done that can be awful.

If you've ever taken an aspirin or pain reliever, you aren't completely against animal testing.

Can you explain? I'm not following the last line "if you've ever taken aspirin or pain reliever, you aren't completely against animal testing"

Because personally, I would rather not take something {I doubt it makes a difference, but I take Tylenol} unless I need to.

Also can you explain about the difference in animal testing you know? I must have only been aware of the cruel kind that I wasn't aware there could be a different kind.

Yeh it's kind of like Estee Lauder and P&G. Many of their brands they own say they don't test on animals, but they parent company does so it's hard to say. {Estee Lauder owns MAC and MAC has had to continuously make statements saying they don't test on animals. They also sell ONLINE to China. China makes company test on animals before selling, and since MAC only does online it's a loop hole. Shady one, but still}

I also think it's a slippery slope. There's a big difference between developing a new cosmetic or perfume that you spray in the face of an animal and developing foods or drugs that need to be tested.

They could test on humans instead. {not that it's a great idea, but there are some nasty people in prison that we could test on lol} I mean it's humans that are using the products ...

That’s not funny. There’s a long and horrific history of using people in prison, poor people, and specifically in the US black people as testers. It’s not a good idea and it’s not a good joke.

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

You've now decided that it's acceptable to use a human being literally as a guinea pig? That a human being due to actions is now acceptably treated as someone less than human??

Where would you actually draw the line on this? You think that the life of someone on the other side of barbed wire would allow them to be treated worse than a lab rat??

Yeh it's kind of like Estee Lauder and P&G. Many of their brands they own say they don't test on animals, but they parent company does so it's hard to say. {Estee Lauder owns MAC and MAC has had to continuously make statements saying they don't test on animals. They also sell ONLINE to China. China makes company test on animals before selling, and since MAC only does online it's a loop hole. Shady one, but still}

I also think it's a slippery slope. There's a big difference between developing a new cosmetic or perfume that you spray in the face of an animal and developing foods or drugs that need to be tested.

They could test on humans instead. {not that it's a great idea, but there are some nasty people in prison that we could test on lol} I mean it's humans that are using the products ...

That’s not funny. There’s a long and horrific history of using people in prison, poor people, and specifically in the US black people as testers. It’s not a good idea and it’s not a good joke.

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

There is literally no way to talk about “prison people” without talking about race.

I think you were just making a poorly thought through joke, which whatever we all do it from time to time, but it is in no way at all a good idea.

In the cases with plenty of drugs, testing on humans is the last step. There's a protocol to follow and there is a hierarchy with testing. As new drugs are introduced we don't test them on humans first. The suggestion to use a human over a rodent is dangerously immoral.

My college experience opened my eyes that animal testing in itself isn't awful. But it's how the practices are done that can be awful.

If you've ever taken an aspirin or pain reliever, you aren't completely against animal testing.

Can you explain? I'm not following the last line "if you've ever taken aspirin or pain reliever, you aren't completely against animal testing"

Because personally, I would rather not take something {I doubt it makes a difference, but I take Tylenol} unless I need to.

Also can you explain about the difference in animal testing you know? I must have only been aware of the cruel kind that I wasn't aware there could be a different kind.

Before a drug is released to the market, it's not just tested on humans. It's tested on animals. There are stages of research that major drug companies go through in testing.

When I was an undergrad the rat lab in the psychology building was used to do research on Parkinson's disease. The lab rats were used to test treatments and at times their brains were examined to see the effects.

Only after the drugs went through the right stages and passing through them were they ultimately able to be released to the next stages of testing on humans. In the cases of drugs that's often the clinical trial phase.

If you've taken any pain relief that's now available over the counter it was tested on animals before it was deemed acceptable to use on humans. Of course you don't take drugs unless you need to. But these drugs are available on the market thanks to the testing by pharmaceutical companies knowing that they were safe for human use and testing on animals was a critical component before releasing them to market.

In the cases with plenty of drugs, testing on humans is the last step. There's a protocol to follow and there is a hierarchy with testing. As new drugs are introduced we don't test them on humans first. The suggestion to use a human over a rodent is dangerously immoral.

My college experience opened my eyes that animal testing in itself isn't awful. But it's how the practices are done that can be awful.

If you've ever taken an aspirin or pain reliever, you aren't completely against animal testing.

Can you explain? I'm not following the last line "if you've ever taken aspirin or pain reliever, you aren't completely against animal testing"

Because personally, I would rather not take something {I doubt it makes a difference, but I take Tylenol} unless I need to.

Also can you explain about the difference in animal testing you know? I must have only been aware of the cruel kind that I wasn't aware there could be a different kind.

Because aspirin and Tylenol and pain relievers were all tested on animals at some point. Like nearly every other drug out there.

In the cases with plenty of drugs, testing on humans is the last step. There's a protocol to follow and there is a hierarchy with testing. As new drugs are introduced we don't test them on humans first. The suggestion to use a human over a rodent is dangerously immoral.

My college experience opened my eyes that animal testing in itself isn't awful. But it's how the practices are done that can be awful.

If you've ever taken an aspirin or pain reliever, you aren't completely against animal testing.

I was recently watching an "Adam Ruins Everything" episode about pharmaceutical testing on mice. While that show is hardly the "be all and end all" of the truth, it was saying that testing medicine on mice that is meant for people is largely pointless. But it is necessary step on the road to approval, so it is always done.

Not my field of study and I won't even pretend I know what the answers are. I have no doubt there is a lot of stupidity in pharmaceutical study practices. But, overall...when pharmaceutical companies don't LIE and MISREPRESENT their studies **cough, Phen-Fen, cough**...I think they have kept people safe from dangerous drugs/procedures.

As a Type I diabetic myself, the "extra care" taken has actually been very frustrating. There are a number of almost cures that have been in human trials for years...with amazing results...but they're still in testing. While thousands of people die and/or develop serious complications from this disease every year.

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

You've now decided that it's acceptable to use a human being literally as a guinea pig? That a human being due to actions is now acceptably treated as someone less than human??

Where would you actually draw the line on this? You think that the life of someone on the other side of barbed wire would allow them to be treated worse than a lab rat??

Again, I said it could be an option. People don't draw the line when testing on animals, and some of the people in prisons have treated people like animals. Hence why they're there.

But there are laws that wouldn't allow this, but where are the laws against being cruel to animals? There isn't really any unfortunately.

Really? You aren't familiar with animal cruelty laws??

You're proposing that a portion of the human population be treated as less than human. Prison is the punishment that people face for their crimes. It isn't prison PLUS treatment as less than a human being.

Oddly enough, the U.S. military will use non-FDA approved drugs on their soldiers. Not necessarily for medical testing, but to hopefully keep people from getting sick.

Both my H and an ex b/f were in the military and, at some point in their careers, were each sent to tropical regions that have malaria. They were both given a non-FDA approved anti-malaria drug (I think it was a shot). And not given a choice about it either!

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

You've now decided that it's acceptable to use a human being literally as a guinea pig? That a human being due to actions is now acceptably treated as someone less than human??

Where would you actually draw the line on this? You think that the life of someone on the other side of barbed wire would allow them to be treated worse than a lab rat??

Again, I said it could be an option. People don't draw the line when testing on animals, and some of the people in prisons have treated people like animals. Hence why they're there.

But there are laws that wouldn't allow this, but where are the laws against being cruel to animals? There isn't really any unfortunately.

Really? You aren't familiar with animal cruelty laws??

You're proposing that a portion of the human population be treated as less than human. Prison is the punishment that people face for their crimes. It isn't prison PLUS treatment as less than a human being.

I am but they aren't as harsh as they could be. Plus they vary in different countries.

Example: someone recently wrapped a dog in a tshirt, put it in a dumpster. When dog was found, it was barely alive and had blood and feces frozen to it's fur and skin. Dog is doing better, but not out of the woods yet.

Once they find the person, they'll get hit with a "no animals ever" and maybe prison time, but max 5yrs.

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

You've now decided that it's acceptable to use a human being literally as a guinea pig? That a human being due to actions is now acceptably treated as someone less than human??

Where would you actually draw the line on this? You think that the life of someone on the other side of barbed wire would allow them to be treated worse than a lab rat??

Again, I said it could be an option. People don't draw the line when testing on animals, and some of the people in prisons have treated people like animals. Hence why they're there.

But there are laws that wouldn't allow this, but where are the laws against being cruel to animals? There isn't really any unfortunately.

Really? You aren't familiar with animal cruelty laws??

You're proposing that a portion of the human population be treated as less than human. Prison is the punishment that people face for their crimes. It isn't prison PLUS treatment as less than a human being.

I am but they aren't as harsh as they could be. Plus they vary in different countries.

Example: someone recently wrapped a dog in a tshirt, put it in a dumpster. When dog was found, it was barely alive and had blood and feces frozen to it's fur and skin. Dog is doing better, but not out of the woods yet.

Once they find the person, they'll get hit with a "no animals ever" and maybe prison time, but max 5yrs.

In this case, I don't think it evens out.

I just really think you have no idea what you’re taking about at all. I’m sorry, but you know how much time people serve for raping an adult woman? For killing a cyclist “accidentally”? And they should spend more than 5 years in jail for hurting a dog? I agree, it’s terrible. But so is the entire prison system. And, again, it’s racist and there’s no way to talk about increasing prison sentences without talking about race.

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

You've now decided that it's acceptable to use a human being literally as a guinea pig? That a human being due to actions is now acceptably treated as someone less than human??

Where would you actually draw the line on this? You think that the life of someone on the other side of barbed wire would allow them to be treated worse than a lab rat??

Again, I said it could be an option. People don't draw the line when testing on animals, and some of the people in prisons have treated people like animals. Hence why they're there.

But there are laws that wouldn't allow this, but where are the laws against being cruel to animals? There isn't really any unfortunately.

Really? You aren't familiar with animal cruelty laws??

You're proposing that a portion of the human population be treated as less than human. Prison is the punishment that people face for their crimes. It isn't prison PLUS treatment as less than a human being.

I am but they aren't as harsh as they could be. Plus they vary in different countries.

Example: someone recently wrapped a dog in a tshirt, put it in a dumpster. When dog was found, it was barely alive and had blood and feces frozen to it's fur and skin. Dog is doing better, but not out of the woods yet.

Once they find the person, they'll get hit with a "no animals ever" and maybe prison time, but max 5yrs.

In this case, I don't think it evens out.

I just really think you have no idea what you’re taking about at all. I’m sorry, but you know how much time people serve for raping an adult woman? For killing a cyclist “accidentally”? And they should spend more than 5 years in jail for hurting a dog? I agree, it’s terrible. But so is the entire prison system. And, again, it’s racist and there’s no way to talk about increasing prison sentences without talking about race.

Laws are different in Canada though, so that may be a difference as well.{note: I just looked up sentencing in Canada for rape cases and it depends on the case - there was no one answer because there are a lot of factors.}

Look, I really did not intend on getting into this entire argument/discussion by any means of the word. {for reference}

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

There is literally no way to talk about “prison people” without talking about race.

I think you were just making a poorly thought through joke, which whatever we all do it from time to time, but it is in no way at all a good idea.

I wasn't really joking, but I wasn't entirely serious about using them. You're right, it wasn't entirely thought through but I think/feel there has to better than animals though ....

Not to mention that a number of people currently in prison have either received harsher sentences because of their race or have been unjustly accused of and imprisoned for committing crimes because of their race. Until the justice system is actually a just system for all without prejudices coming into play, one cannot assume that all are incarcerated for legitimate/equal reasons. The most "benign" example being selling/using marijuana. The number of black people incarcerated (sometimes for long periods) for minuscule amounts of marijuana compared to the number of white people being charged/incarcerated for the same is so disproportionate it's disgusting.

Also, in the testing of drugs for diseases, one reason mice are used is because their gestational period is 20 days. 20 days. Which means that it's much easier to detect generational mutations or improvements in a disease based on research and diagnose/treat/hopefully find a cure for a disease that is hereditary based on the research on mice over generations. There are literally generations of mice in Cambridge that are worth millions of dollars because of the improvements in research that have been made as a result of studies across generations.

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

There is literally no way to talk about “prison people” without talking about race.

I think you were just making a poorly thought through joke, which whatever we all do it from time to time, but it is in no way at all a good idea.

I wasn't really joking, but I wasn't entirely serious about using them. You're right, it wasn't entirely thought through but I think/feel there has to better than animals though ....

Not to mention that a number of people currently in prison have either received harsher sentences because of their race or have been unjustly accused of and imprisoned for committing crimes because of their race. Until the justice system is actually a just system for all without prejudices coming into play, one cannot assume that all are incarcerated for legitimate/equal reasons. The most "benign" example being selling/using marijuana. The number of black people incarcerated (sometimes for long periods) for minuscule amounts of marijuana compared to the number of white people being charged/incarcerated for the same is so disproportionate it's disgusting.

Also, in the testing of drugs for diseases, one reason mice are used is because their gestational period is 20 days. 20 days. Which means that it's much easier to detect generational mutations or improvements in a disease based on research and diagnose/treat/hopefully find a cure for a disease that is hereditary based on the research on mice over generations. There are literally generations of mice in Cambridge that are worth millions of dollars because of the improvements in research that have been made as a result of studies across generations.

Another comparison is the sentences for crimes involving crack vs. cocaine. Chemically they're nearly identical and yet the sentence for selling / possession of crack are often longer.

Yeh it's kind of like Estee Lauder and P&G. Many of their brands they own say they don't test on animals, but they parent company does so it's hard to say. {Estee Lauder owns MAC and MAC has had to continuously make statements saying they don't test on animals. They also sell ONLINE to China. China makes company test on animals before selling, and since MAC only does online it's a loop hole. Shady one, but still}

I also think it's a slippery slope. There's a big difference between developing a new cosmetic or perfume that you spray in the face of an animal and developing foods or drugs that need to be tested.

They could test on humans instead. {not that it's a great idea, but there are some nasty people in prison that we could test on lol} I mean it's humans that are using the products ...

That’s not funny. There’s a long and horrific history of using people in prison, poor people, and specifically in the US black people as testers. It’s not a good idea and it’s not a good joke.

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

You've now decided that it's acceptable to use a human being literally as a guinea pig? That a human being due to actions is now acceptably treated as someone less than human??

Where would you actually draw the line on this? You think that the life of someone on the other side of barbed wire would allow them to be treated worse than a lab rat??

Oi, I’ve had the animal testing argument with several people but I’ve known several researchers who have run animal experiments and I know the head of the animal lab at the local University. I’m not for testing for beauty products, but I do understand the need for medical research. Human trials are usually closely monitored by the drug companies, research boards, and hospitals. The more invasive the trial, the more the volunteers are compensated. There’s often a loyof paperwork that everyone has to filled out for these trials.

I cannot believe we're actually entertaining a conversation about testing drugs on a confined population. It's disgusting and I'm really appalled that anyone would actually think this is close to acceptable.

Oi, I’ve had the animal testing argument with several people but I’ve known several researchers who have run animal experiments and I know the head of the animal lab at the local University. I’m not for testing for beauty products, but I do understand the need for medical research. Human trials are usually closely monitored by the drug companies, research boards, and hospitals. The more invasive the trial, the more the volunteers are compensated. There’s often a loyof paperwork that everyone has to filled out for these trials.

For anyone interested in a human trial from the perspective of someone who was "sort of" in one, read on. Though I was kicked out after the first night .

I was in one of the last of the human trials for this medicene. And I think some of the active, main ingredients were already used in other medications. So I felt pretty safe with it.

It was supposed to be for 10 days at a facility. As in, I couldn't leave at all. One researcher (I think she was also a nurse) would stay with me the whole time, though in a separate bedroom. I was going to be paid $2600 for it. The facility turned out to be a residential home where one big area had been turned into what looked like a mini lab.

Of course, I had to fill out some paperwork and sign disclosures and all that. But I wouldn't have called it a lot of paperwork.

Before being chosen, I had to visit their offices (I think) 3 times and have all kinds of tests and vitals run.

This is the eye rolling part. A major part of the paperwork was EVERY medicine I was taking and especially exactly what kinds of insulins I was taking and how much.

I went into the facility early evening. The researcher did this whole rigamaroll. Including being hooked up to a portable machine that would continually check my blood sugar numbers. Every time I took insulin, it was recorded. My vitals were also checked every few hours (though not overnight).

Mid-day the next day, the pharmaceutical company called freaking out that I was taking NPH instead of Lantus. They are insulins that do similar things, but Lantus is a much newer medicine. YEAH! DUH! It was disclosed in my paperwork that I use NPH. Not Lantus.

They wanted me out of the study, because of that. The researcher and the doctor each argued with the company for hours that they had already approved the insulins I was taking. And the type of long-acting insulin I was taking wouldn't matter for what they were studying anyway.

Nope. I was kicked out. I at least got $600 for my troubles. But $2600 would have been better (sigh).

-------------------------------------------------------

They didn't disclose the name of the drug to me. But they did tell me exactly what it did and how it worked. I saw it come onto market about one year later . I saw a commercial that gave a few sentence description of how the drug worked. I looked at my H with big, shocked eyes and start exclaiming, "Holy crap! Holy crap! That has to be the drug I was in the testing for!!! It's exactly the same." Interestingly, approved for Type II diabetics, but not for Type I (my type).

I asked my endocrinologist about that. He explained that, it wasn't that Type I diabetics couldn't take it, it just hadn't been found as effective for them as for Type II. So it didn't meet the FDA's benchmark for effectiveness to be marketed to Type I's. He did add that he doesn't think it is a bad idea for Type I's to try it, because it usually has some effect. From his experience, for some Type I's it did have a pretty good effect but, for most, it was only a minor effect.

I cannot believe we're actually entertaining a conversation about testing drugs on a confined population. It's disgusting and I'm really appalled that anyone would actually think this is close to acceptable.

This. Honestly I read that comment and was absolutely sick to my stomach thinking about how THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED during the Holocaust and other genocides where people were imprisoned.

So yea, there's no justifying that idea. It's horrible and literally inhumane.

Yeh it's kind of like Estee Lauder and P&G. Many of their brands they own say they don't test on animals, but they parent company does so it's hard to say. {Estee Lauder owns MAC and MAC has had to continuously make statements saying they don't test on animals. They also sell ONLINE to China. China makes company test on animals before selling, and since MAC only does online it's a loop hole. Shady one, but still}

I also think it's a slippery slope. There's a big difference between developing a new cosmetic or perfume that you spray in the face of an animal and developing foods or drugs that need to be tested.

They could test on humans instead. {not that it's a great idea, but there are some nasty people in prison that we could test on lol} I mean it's humans that are using the products ...

That’s not funny. There’s a long and horrific history of using people in prison, poor people, and specifically in the US black people as testers. It’s not a good idea and it’s not a good joke.

I'm not saying they should, I don't mean they should. Also I'm not pulling race in this, I said prison people. Those who are never getting out because of their crimes, etc.

You've now decided that it's acceptable to use a human being literally as a guinea pig? That a human being due to actions is now acceptably treated as someone less than human??

Where would you actually draw the line on this? You think that the life of someone on the other side of barbed wire would allow them to be treated worse than a lab rat??

Oi, I’ve had the animal testing argument with several people but I’ve known several researchers who have run animal experiments and I know the head of the animal lab at the local University. I’m not for testing for beauty products, but I do understand the need for medical research. Human trials are usually closely monitored by the drug companies, research boards, and hospitals. The more invasive the trial, the more the volunteers are compensated. There’s often a loyof paperwork that everyone has to filled out for these trials.

There's also a ton of training, oversight, and constant monitoring for any research that involves individuals; even moreso for specialized populations including prisoners, children, and pregnant women.

I recently had a study approved by our Institutional Review Board to survey staff members. It was a completely voluntary study, people could leave at any time, it was anonymous, and there was no collected identifiers. My proposal was over 30 pages long, had multiple rounds of revisions, and is only valid for 1 year. All these provisions are in place because people have been consistently taken advantage of, harmed, and injured because of studies.

These are serious things because we are literally talking about people's lives.

IDGAF if Canada's prison system is equal opportunity (exactly reflective of the racial makeup of Canada's population).*

IDGAF if there are zero issues with Canada's justice system and they've figured out the magic algorithm for fair and unbiased sentencing.**

I cannot think of a grosser human rights violation than experimenting on an imprisoned population. This has got to be one of the more fucked up things I've read on TK....Like actually impactfully fucked up.

Oi, I’ve had the animal testing argument with several people but I’ve known several researchers who have run animal experiments and I know the head of the animal lab at the local University. I’m not for testing for beauty products, but I do understand the need for medical research. Human trials are usually closely monitored by the drug companies, research boards, and hospitals. The more invasive the trial, the more the volunteers are compensated. There’s often a loyof paperwork that everyone has to filled out for these trials.

For anyone interested in a human trial from the perspective of someone who was "sort of" in one, read on. Though I was kicked out after the first night .

I was in one of the last of the human trials for this medicene. And I think some of the active, main ingredients were already used in other medications. So I felt pretty safe with it.

It was supposed to be for 10 days at a facility. As in, I couldn't leave at all. One researcher (I think she was also a nurse) would stay with me the whole time, though in a separate bedroom. I was going to be paid $2600 for it. The facility turned out to be a residential home where one big area had been turned into what looked like a mini lab.

Of course, I had to fill out some paperwork and sign disclosures and all that. But I wouldn't have called it a lot of paperwork.

Before being chosen, I had to visit their offices (I think) 3 times and have all kinds of tests and vitals run.

This is the eye rolling part. A major part of the paperwork was EVERY medicine I was taking and especially exactly what kinds of insulins I was taking and how much.

I went into the facility early evening. The researcher did this whole rigamaroll. Including being hooked up to a portable machine that would continually check my blood sugar numbers. Every time I took insulin, it was recorded. My vitals were also checked every few hours (though not overnight).

Mid-day the next day, the pharmaceutical company called freaking out that I was taking NPH instead of Lantus. They are insulins that do similar things, but Lantus is a much newer medicine. YEAH! DUH! It was disclosed in my paperwork that I use NPH. Not Lantus.

They wanted me out of the study, because of that. The researcher and the doctor each argued with the company for hours that they had already approved the insulins I was taking. And the type of long-acting insulin I was taking wouldn't matter for what they were studying anyway.

Nope. I was kicked out. I at least got $600 for my troubles. But $2600 would have been better (sigh).

-------------------------------------------------------

They didn't disclose the name of the drug to me. But they did tell me exactly what it did and how it worked. I saw it come onto market about one year later . I saw a commercial that gave a few sentence description of how the drug worked. I looked at my H with big, shocked eyes and start exclaiming, "Holy crap! Holy crap! That has to be the drug I was in the testing for!!! It's exactly the same." Interestingly, approved for Type II diabetics, but not for Type I (my type).

I asked my endocrinologist about that. He explained that, it wasn't that Type I diabetics couldn't take it, it just hadn't been found as effective for them as for Type II. So it didn't meet the FDA's benchmark for effectiveness to be marketed to Type I's. He did add that he doesn't think it is a bad idea for Type I's to try it, because it usually has some effect. From his experience, for some Type I's it did have a pretty good effect but, for most, it was only a minor effect.

I’ve been a part of several drug trials and other types of studies as I went to a research university and there were flyers all the time. Some were gift cards, some were big money. It depended on the invasiveness of the study. Everything was done on an informed and voluntary basis.

@TrixieJess, it's been my experience that I'm NOT eligible for most drug trials because they only want participants with no health issues. And then I get disqualified from the only one I've ever seen for Type I diabetics. Whomp-whomp. We're only about 5% of the diabetic population, so we don't even qualify for most of those studies. Quite frankly, we're the forgotten ones and it feels like the medical community doesn't give a s**t about us. Why would they when Type II is so much more common, rampant, and juicy. I get it. But it's doubly frustrating when, most of the time, they just use the general world "diabetes" and then I have to scour through info to figure out if it is even relevant for me. It rarely is.

Sorry for the unrelated rant. I should really avoid posts talking about medical stuff, lol.

The human trial I am the most interested in, is one where they transplant new beta cells (which make insulin) into the pancreas. So far, I think it has had about an 83% success rate in curing participants. But NOLA is hardly the hub of medical research, lmao. But I would quit my job and move to wherever I needed to for that one. Such a long shot. It's depressing.

@TrixieJess, it's been my experience that I'm NOT eligible for most drug trials because they only want participants with no health issues. And then I get disqualified from the only one I've ever seen for Type I diabetics. Whomp-whomp. We're only about 5% of the diabetic population, so we don't even qualify for most of those studies. Quite frankly, we're the forgotten ones and it feels like the medical community doesn't give a s**t about us. Why would they when Type II is so much more common, rampant, and juicy. I get it. But it's doubly frustrating when, most of the time, they just use the general world "diabetes" and then I have to scour through info to figure out if it is even relevant for me. It rarely is.

Sorry for the unrelated rant. I should really avoid posts talking about medical stuff, lol.

The human trial I am the most interested in, is one where they transplant new beta cells (which make insulin) into the pancreas. So far, I think it has had about an 83% success rate in curing participants. But NOLA is hardly the hub of medical research, lmao. But I would quit my job and move to wherever I needed to for that one. Such a long shot. It's depressing.

You should talk to your doctor. I got into the Botox study for migraines because my neurologist knew the lead doctor on the study. There are a few “ sick” studies. Usually teaching hospitals conduct them. Luckily, my university was attached to one of those.

You should talk to your doctor. I got into the Botox study for migraines because my neurologist knew the lead doctor on the study. There are a few “ sick” studies. Usually teaching hospitals conduct them. Luckily, my university was attached to one of those.

I was thinking about that as I wrote my post. Because I don't even know who/where those studies are being conducted. But my endocrinologist might.

One of the things I like about him, is he is a Type I diabetic himself. I'm sure all doctors stay on top of their specialty's research, but I would think that might make him especially motivated.

I'm super confused about the "gluten free seitan skewer" that the guest with celiac had. Was the guest told it was seitan? How did neither she nor the server not know that seitan cannot be gluten free because, um, all it is is gluten???

SITB - my guess is that neither of them knew what seitan is. i didn't know what it was until a friend recently went vegan and used it for his "turkey" in a "traditional Thanksgiving dinner." i googled it because while i've heard of tofurkey, seitan was new for me.

i'm confused about the refusal for soy sauce - it's soy, water, salt and wheat. how is that not vegan?

I remember a few years back that Kikoman Soy Sauce got in trouble for some pretty violent, barbaric animal testing. I don't know about you, but here I would guess 90% of restaurant soy sauce is Kikoman. I know a couple hindus/vegetarians/vegans that don't eat soy sauce out as they don't want to support that brand.

A bit like how many people boycott Nestle for what they did in Africa.

I don't really consume either of these brands, but I feel really uninformed as I don't know about either of these things. To google or not to google, that is the question....

I didn't know about Kikoman or Nestle .... it does make me want to reconsider some things I buy now ....

Unfortunately with googling, you'll get a lot of typical brands that test on animals You won't realize how many brands do, and it may not be that particular one but the mothership does - so in turn they do. It's sad.

So the issue With Nestle isn't animal testing. Long story short, Nestle essentially killed a whole lot of human babies in developing world and is pretty much responsible for the backlash against breastfeeding in developing regions.

They heavily marketed their baby formula in developing countries over breastfeeding. They said it was healthier and what wealthy people did. And that breastfeeding was gross.

The problem is that in many developing countries, it is hard to get potable water. Or the water has bacteria/ parasites in it. Usually these are treatable for adults, but horrible for babies. So the formula mixed with this was killing a lot of babies. Also, many lack facilities to properly steralise bottles which also created an epidemic of babies dying because of preventable diseases.

In addition to this, because of poverty, many parents were using less formula then required to stretch it, thus leading to malnutrition in many babies.

I work in health/developent NGO especially around women's health, and I still see the fall out from this. The campaign was so aggressive they basically destroyed the breastfeeding in many of these parts of the world. The WHO spends SO much money fighting this.

I tend to be boycott light, but Nestle is the only company that I will actively avoid. What they did was unforgivable and they have never really apologised or acknowledged their role.

@LondonLisa - that's terrible! But so are 99% of their products anyway. Their chocolate is really gross. I mean, if you're going to eat chocolate, eat good chocolate. I googled a boycott list and the only thing I'm guilty of buying is cherrios.